Wednesday, September 4, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, one attack
may have ugly implications for Iraq's future, Nouri says Iraq will
suffer from an attack on Syria, Barack continues to push for war on
Syria, John Kerry is revealed to be a dining buddy of Bashar al-Assad,
the US-backed 'rebels' of Syria in al Qaeda attacked a Christian village
today, and much more.

Tom Cohen (CNN) reports
US President Barack Obama declared today, "A red line for us in we star
seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being
utilized." What is The Dalibama of War babbling about? His push for
war on Syria and, Cohen states, "Conservative critics have
said Obama painted himself into a corner with his statement last year
that Syria's use of chemical weapons was a red line that would change
his approach to its civil war." Cohen's mistaken, it's not just
conservative critics who are making this claim and Cohen is wrong in
that he refuses to explain really what the claim is. Devin Dwyer (ABC News) reported last week:

While Obama has long spoken out against Bashar al-Assad and the use of chemical weapons,
it was the president’s apparent off-the-cuff comments one year ago that
may now be most responsible for putting the U.S. in a bind.Obama’s warning in August 2012 that use of a “whole bunch” of chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” triggering “enormous consequences,” went much further than aides had planned, several told the New York Times earlier this year. Some reportedly wished Obama could have taken those words back.Now, the Nobel Peace Prize
laureate, who has made ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan his
signature foreign policy achievement, is at risk of entangling the U.S.
in a fresh Middle East conflict.

It was beyond stupid for Barack to make that ultimatum and it was the
action of a politically naive savant which really makes you wonder who
really runs the White House? But that's how the US government ended up
where they are now and, note, Some White House aides "reportedly wished
Obama could have taken those words back." That doesn't sound like
conservative critics. Betty's certainly not a conservative and, last night, addressing Secretary of State John Kerry
went on and on about "reputation" in yesterday's hearing which can be
boiled down as Barack shot off his mouth and Kerry feels it is the duty
of the Congress to ignore the will of the people to protect The
Dahlibahma of War from his own big, fat mouth. This led Betty to state
what we should all be wondering, "And for that, you want innocent
Syrians to die in your pretend 'precision strike'."

Because Barack Obama, two years ago, said “Assad must go,” and, one year ago,
said any use of chemical weapons crosses his “red line,” Congress has no choice
but to plunge America into yet another Mideast war. Can this be? Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war to make good
the simple-minded statements of an untutored president who had no constitutional
authority to issue his impulsive ultimata? Are we really required to go to war to get the egg off Obama’s face?

With obscene imperial arrogance, President Obama proclaimed
that the “world” – not he – has drawn a bloody “red line” in Syria. “I
didn’t set a red line,” said Obama, at a stop in Sweden on his way to a
Group of 20 nations meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia. “The world set a
red line.”That’s news to the rest of the planet, including most of the Group of 20 and the meeting’s host, Russian President Vladimir Putin,
who described Obama’s claims that Syria used sarin gas against
civilians in rebel-held areas as “completely ridiculous.” “It does not
fit any logic,” said Putin, since Syrian President Assad’s forces “have
the so-called rebels surrounded and are finishing them off.”It’s news to China, which will surely join Russia in vetoing any
Security Council motion to provide legal cover for Obama’s aggression.
And it’s news to the usually compliant UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
who this week reaffirmed
that “the Security Council has primary responsibility for international
peace and security" and “the use of force is lawful only when in
exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United
Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.”It’s news to Great Britain, America’s temporarily wayward poodle,
whose parliament rejected any militarily entanglement in Obama’s red
line. As esteemed political analyst William Blum points out, 64 percent
of the people of France oppose their government’s planned participation
Obama’s Battle of the Red Line.Apparently, a young and impressionable Obama took the 1985 USA for
Africa song “We are the World” too literally, and believes that all one
need do is sing or shout the words to make it so.

The black misleadership scoundrels are also worthy of scorn in this
crime. Van Jones was tossed under the wheels of Obama’s bus yet has sung
his praises ever since. As a “left” commentator on CNN he said,
“If you kill Assad right now, wonderful.” Jones also claimed that the
United States overthrew a dictator in Iran in 1953. Of course Mohammed
Mossadegh was democratically elected and Jones was left to feebly
explain that he meant to use the word leader.Jones wasn’t alone in trashing black Americans’ historic opposition
to military aggression. We didn’t really need further proof that black
politics has reached its nadir under Obama, but Eleanor Holmes Norton
provided us with more. The non-voting Washington DC delegate to congress
had this to say about why Obama will probably win congressional
approval for more death and destruction. “If [Obama] gets saved at all, I
think it’ll be because, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They
just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.”
Not satisfied at her public expression of stupidity she had this to
say. “At the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I
could vote on it.” So shallow and shameful were Norton’s words that one
might be tempted to support the district’s powerless status.

Today Barack got a little closer to getting his war on Syria. Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee
voted narrowly Wednesday to authorize a punitive U.S. strike against
Syria, opening the way for a vote in the full Senate next week." Ruth asked that we note her Senator Chris Murphy was one of the votes against authorizing an attack on Syria. On Labor Day, Ruth noted
Murphy's comments about Syria and would have guessed that he would have
voted for authorization. She notes that she and a friend in her
neighborhood went door to door speaking to those home about the need to
contact Murphy and distributing fliers with contact info. Jake Miller (CBS News) explains, "With the exceptions of Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Chris Murphy, D-Conn.,
and Ed Markey, D-Mass., all of the panel's Democrats voted in favor of
the resolution. Udall and Murphy were opposed, while Markey voted
'present.'" Gregory Korte (USA Today) notes,
"The vote was 10-7. Five Republicans and two Democrats voted against
it. The
committee's consensus followed closed-door meetings Wednesday morning,
which delayed the start of the committee's meeting by nearly three
hours." Along with Murphy and Udall, the other "no" votes were
Republican Senators John Barasso, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, James Risch
and Marco Rubio. "Yes" votes were Democratic Senators Barbra Boxer,
Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, Ben Cardin, Tim Kaine, Robert Menendez and
Jean Shaheen. Republicans voting "yes" to attack were Bob Corker, Jeff
Flake and John McCain.

If it surprises you that more did not stand up, look at the House minority leader and the idiotic story she told:

"I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old
grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my
name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria.
And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action.
Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’
He said, ‘I think no war.’ I said, ‘Well, I generally agree with that but you
know, they have killed hundreds of children, they’ve killed hundreds of children
there. ‘ And he said, five years old, ‘Were these children in the United States?’
And I said, ‘No, but they’re children wherever they are.’

To the reporters crowding around her, who share the globalist assumptions of
the political class, her remarks seemed… well, unremarkable. To ordinary people,
however, Pelosi’s smart-as-a-whip grandson posed a very good question, perhaps
the only pertinent one in this whole debate: what does the Syrian civil war
have to do with us? Which makes one wonder: what was Pelosi thinking as she
related a narrative whose real meaning seemed to elude her.Which brings us rather neatly to the central question underlying the debate
over whether to strike Syria: What was the Obama administration thinking
when they decided to try to pull this off? Do they live on another planet from
the rest of us?That is really the central issue here. Forget the "weapons of mass destruction:"
let’s not even talk about the vague and very
shaky "evidence" linking the Assad regime to the use of sarin
gas – and it’s probably best to ignore the "moral" arguments users
of phosphorus bombs and depleted uranium weaponry invoke when justifying this
war. The real question is what kind of mindset are the Nancy Pelosis of this
world operating under. It’s not a partisan mindset: the leadership of both parties,
as well as the White House have all drunk from the same pitcher of Kool-Aid.

For Congressional advocates for war, international law doesn't matter. Nor, as Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com), does public opinion appear to matter:But while the president can count on old-guard hawks to vote yes
before
they even hear what country they’re voting to lob missiles at, the
American public is nowhere near so easy to trick, and despite top
officials repeatedly advocating the war in public addresses, the polls continue to show broad, bipartisan opposition among Americans for the conflict.Nationwide, the administration can’t even crack the 30% mark
on selling the war to the public, even with television news networks
shamelessly reiterating administration lies about unquestionable “proof”
of Assad’s guilt and Secretary of State John Kerry loudly and repeatedly comparing Assad to Adolf Hitler.

Officials are throwing every rhetorical trick in the book at Congress to see what sticks at this point, from Hitler to Iran, and making any empty promises about keeping the war limited to skeptics while talking up escalation to hawks.There is palpable desperation in the administration’s attempts to
sell the war at all costs, and while officials have regularly tried to
trick the country into war throughout history, there have been few that
have been so flagrant about it. Fortunately, the polls are still not on
their side, and the American public appear unwilling to be fooled this
time.Antiwar.com urges all readers to contact their Congressmen and urge them to vote against attacking Syria. Click here for contract information.

Yesterday, MoveOn sent out the following e-mail:

**OFFICIAL VOTE**

Dear MoveOn member,

We need your help making an important decision.

President Obama has asked Congress to authorize the use of military force in Syria in response to recent reports of a chemical
weapons attack by the government there.1

Because MoveOn is its members, the stance MoveOn takes on this issue will be decided by MoveOn members.

Should MoveOn support or oppose the congressional authorization to use military force in Syria?

Today Rebecca Shabad (The Hill) reports, "The liberal group MoveOn said Wednesday it opposes military action in Syria and will work to defeat it in Congress. The
group, which spearheaded liberal opposition to the Iraq War, said it
surveyed its 8 million members and found overwhelming opposition to
President Obama’s call for Syria strikes."

I'm honestly surprised by that move -- not by the results of the
vote but that MoveOn listened to their membership. Maybe if John Kerry
would stop repeatedly hissing "Hitler," he could hear the voice of the
people as well? Or maybe the question to ask is WWHB: Who Would Hitler
Back?

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: And I'm Renee Montagne.President
Obama has promised limited military action against Syria. He says
missile strikes are not about regime change and there will be no boots
on the ground. But even as the Congress debates the president's plans
for action, the White House is looking at broader options.NPR's Tom Bowman reports the president may call on the U.S. military to help build up the Syrian opposition.

TOM
BOWMAN, BYLINE: Right now it's not the Pentagon but the CIA that's
working with the Syrian rebels, mostly providing training in Jordan. But
the president also promised weapons for the rebels back in June and
they haven't arrived. So yesterday at a Senate hearing, Republican Bob
Corker of Tennessee put this question to Secretary of State John Kerry.(SOUNDBITE OF HEARING)SENATOR
BOB CORKER: Why have we been so slow, so inept in so many ways at
helping build capacity of this opposition that we have said publicly
that we support?SECRETARY JOHN KERRY: I think, Senator, we
need to have that discussion tomorrow in classified session. We can talk
about some components of that.

BOWMAN: Classified session,
meaning behind closed doors; that's because the CIA is handling the
effort. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Senator Corker the U.S.
military is on the sidelines.

If Barack Obama decides to attack the
Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history –
that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three
Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they
sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when –
the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on
9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents
they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an
achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature
warlords.

It's full circle for the CIA, back in business with al Qaeda after
training and funding them to fight against the USSR military in
Afghanistan. The Voice of Russia reports Russian President Vladamir Putin is criticizing the US government for getting in bed with al Qaeda:"Surely, this lie is not very elegant," he said. "I watched
the debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr. [US Secretary of State
John] Kerry: 'Is there al-Qaeda there? There has been rumor that they
are gaining strength'. He [Kerry] replies, 'No. I am telling you firmly:
there are none of them there'," Putin said.

As
a matter of fact, "the principal combative unit [acting in Syria now]
is the so-called Nusra, which is an al-Qaeda unit," Putin said. "And
they know this. I even felt quite awkward. We are communicating with
them and assume that they are decent people. And he is telling an
outright lie, and he knows that he is lying. This is sad," Putin said
apparently referring to Kerry.

Darya Korsunskaya, Steve Gutterman and Timothy Heritage (Reuters) report it this way:"They lie beautifully, of course. I saw
debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: 'Is al Qaeda there?'
He says: 'No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not'," Putin said
at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin."Al
Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this," he
said, referring to the United States. "It was unpleasant and surprising
for me - we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are
decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."
In fairness to John Kerry, he's never dined with al Qaeda so he might have trouble identifying them.

In an attempt to help him, let's note Karin Laub and Sarah DiLorenzo (AP) reported
this afternoon that a vicious assault took place on the "Christian
mountain village" of Maaloula today. Bashar al-Assad's forces? No,
al-Assad's government has been secular. So who was it? Barack Obama's
beloved rebels, "rebels from the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group
launched the assault on predominantly Christian Maaloula."
This is who Barack is supporting.

Syria shares a border with Iraq. All Iraq News notes Nouri al-Maliki is planning to deliver a speech on Syria today. Hou Qiang (Xinhua) reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki on Wednesday
launched a new peace initiative to end the Syrian crisis and called on
the Arab countries and the world to back his plan.Maliki said at his weekly statement that his nine-point initiative is
a modified version of Iraq's former peace plan, which was rejected by
the Syrian opposition last year. The plan includes a series of proposals like stopping arming the both
sides of the conflict, withdrawal of all foreign fighters, supporting
investigation into the use of chemical weapons and rejection of military
intervention in Syria, as well as establishing a fund for the return of
Syrian refugees."

Iraq has been careful to maintain neutrality in Syria, but its prime
minister blamed the recent increase in violence on what was happening
next door."The internal situation in Syria is playing a major role with what's happening in Iraq," Nouri al-Maliki said .He was also critical of the proposed in Syria."The
military solution is a dead end that has nothing in it but the
destruction of Syria," he said. "Nothing is obvious on the horizon other
than destruction, catastrophe and a civil war that has no winner."Maliki previously would further destabilize the region.In
recent years, Iraq has drawn closer to Iran, and, , has granted Iran
access to its airspace to deliver weapons and fighters to Assad.It's
worth pointing out that the Obama administration, in its attempt to
make a case for military action in Syria, has insisted it , where the
U.S. spent more than eight years until the withdrawal of troops in 2011.

On this, Nouri's position is the position of a number of Iraqis. But
it is not the position of Iraq. The KRG only recently made a statement
to the effect of they will stay out of it. The Kurds in Iraq generally
speaking support the Kurds in Syria. In Iraq, the Kurds have a
semi-autonomous area. In Syria, they do not. The US-invasion of Iraq
toppled the presidency of Saddam Hussein and his government which was
seen as serving the Sunni population. After the invasion, the
(US-installed) Shi'ites took over. They are the majority population in
Iraq. In Syria, it's the other side of the coin with an estimated 74%
of the population being Sunni Muslim. Some Sunnis in Iraq support the
Sunnis in Syria and some Iraqi Sunnis cross the border to fight in the
Syrian War. (Some Iraqi Shi'ites also cross the border to fight in
Syria's civil war.)

The whole point here is that when you step away from leaders, you find a
wider view and it's really simplistic to say: This is the Iraq view.

NPR would have been better off presenting Nouri's view as Nouri's and
noting that Moqtada al-Sadr and Ayad Allawi are among those in agreement
with him. In the Sadr bloc's statements made yesterday,
the Sadr bloc specifically noted that there was a wide range of
opinions re: Syria within the National Iraqi Alliance -- a Shi'ite
alliance of various political groups including Moqtada's bloc, Nouri's
State of Law, Ibrahim al-Jaafari's National Reform Trend, Ahmad
Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, and Ammar al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq.

According to John Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee yesterday, he spent the last two years wooing foreign leaders
to go to war with Syria. He clearly failed in that time to do his job
and overseeing the US
mission in Iraq to increase diplomatic ties.

How sad for John if Nouri's remarks today shake the resolve of other
leaders to go to war on Syria. But that is possible and it's what can
happen when you fail to do your job. As Secretary of State, Kerry
should have been interacting with Iraq regularly. Didn't happen.

It's not just Nouri. Yesterday, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reported
that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was saying that a US military attack on
Syria would make the already worsening security situation in Iraq spiral
out of control. And that is true.

Ayad Allawi's writing about Syria on his Facebook page and noting that
Iraq shouldn't be expected to stop aid to Syria from Iran. He's right.
Iraq can't even secure their own air space. They lack the planes and
the training.

In the fall of 2011, the State Dept began taking over the US mission in
Iraq in preparation of the military drawdown. The Dept has been given
billions each Fiscal Year for that. And yet they seem to have no idea
of what goes on Iraq or what the sentiment there is.

Iraq is the best argument against attacking Syria.

Not just because we're seeing similar lies in the effort to sell the attack.

Also not only because Iraq is a testament to how US governmental 'help' has made another country worse, not better.

But the main reason is because an attack's going to make Iraq worse.
Attacking Syria means more refugees entering Iraq, means more al Qaeda
and other fighters going through Iraq to enter and leave Syria, means
the region is in turmoil and brings back the level of fear (which caused
great mental stress in Iraq as studies demonstrated) that was present
throughout the US occupation. There is no way Iraq wins from an attack
on Syria.

Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports
that in anticipation of a US strike on Syria, Sahwas are being deployed
to Mosul in expectation of an influx of refugees and, more to the
point, to assist if the civil war in Syria spills over -- a fear that
many Iraqis in the area fear.

That attack is very important. al Qaeda may or may not be responsible
for that attack but for years they have launched attacks in that area.
The attack, if carried out by al Qaeda, may have been an attack on
business or anything. But the best guess is it being an attack on women
who refuse to live in Iraq as though Iraq is Afghanistan.